Can Spaceship A Destroy Spaceship B at 99.99% the Speed of Light?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hubble_bubble
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spaceship
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothetical scenario of spaceship A attempting to destroy spaceship B while both are traveling at 99.99% the speed of light. Participants explore the implications of relativistic speeds on missile trajectories, reference frames, and the behavior of light, raising questions about the feasibility of such an action and the effects of time dilation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the reference frame for the speeds of the spaceships, asking whether they are moving at the same speed and in the same direction.
  • Others argue that if both spaceships are moving together, the missile fired from spaceship A should hit spaceship B regardless of its speed relative to an external observer.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of firing a missile at a speed less than the speed of light, with some suggesting that time dilation could affect perceptions of speed.
  • Participants highlight that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, but there is disagreement on how this affects the missile's speed as perceived by different observers.
  • Some participants propose that an observer on spaceship A would measure the speed of a photon as c, while others question how time dilation would affect the perception of that photon.
  • There is a mention of a third spaceship (C) traveling in the opposite direction, raising questions about the detection of photons fired at both ships from spaceship A.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the effects of relativistic speeds, reference frames, and the behavior of light. The discussion remains unresolved with ongoing debates about the implications of time dilation and the measurements of speed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of speed and reference frames, as well as unresolved questions about the effects of time dilation on measurements made by observers in different frames.

hubble_bubble
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Spaceship A and spaceship b are traveling at 99.99... % the speed of light. Spaceship A is behind spaceship B. Spaceship A wants to destroy spaceship B and fires a missile. Will spaceship A succeed for any velocity the rocket is launched at and at a variable distance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hubble_bubble said:
Spaceship A and spaceship b are traveling at 99.99... % the speed of light.
Traveling at 99.99..% c with respect to what? Are they both moving at the same speed?
 
Doc Al said:
Traveling at 99.99..% c with respect to what? Are they both moving at the same speed?

Both moving at the same speed and in the same direction.
 
hubble_bubble said:
Both moving at the same speed and in the same direction.
OK. So why wouldn't ship A's missile hit ship B? The fact that they happen to be moving with respect to something else doesn't matter.
 
Doc Al said:
OK. So why wouldn't ship A's missile hit ship B? The fact that they happen to be moving with respect to something else doesn't matter.

If they are traveling at 99.99...% the speed of light of course it matters. Say you fired your missile at 5% the speed of light (yes I know it is impractical) then you have a problem unless time dilation has skewed yourview of the universe enough to make you think the wrong velocity is 5% c.
 
Let's put it another way. In all frames of reference light is at a constant speed. So anything measured with regard to the speed of light should be constant. So if spaceship A fires a missile at 5% the speed of light then that is the speed it should travel at from the observers perspective unless his measurement of the speed of light is wrong.
 
hubble_bubble said:
If they are traveling at 99.99...% the speed of light of course it matters. Say you fired your missile at 5% the speed of light (yes I know it is impractical) then you have a problem unless time dilation has skewed yourview of the universe enough to make you think the wrong velocity is 5% c.
The missiles are firing at some speed with respect to the ships. Say I am in ship A and you are in ship B. You and I are at rest with respect to each other--we are moving together. If I fire a missile at you, then it will eventually hit you regardless of its speed. The fact that we happen to be moving with respect to something else is irrelevant.
 
hubble_bubble said:
Let's put it another way. In all frames of reference light is at a constant speed.
Right. The speed of light (in vacuum) is the same for all observers.
So anything measured with regard to the speed of light should be constant.
No. Something moving at less than the speed of light will appear to move at a different speed in different frames.
So if spaceship A fires a missile at 5% the speed of light then that is the speed it should travel at from the observers perspective unless his measurement of the speed of light is wrong.
Say A and B are traveling at 0.99c with respect to the earth. A fires a missile at B at 0.05c with respect to the ships. As far as A and B are concerned, that missile is moving at 0.05c.

Of course, as seen by Earth observers, the speed of the missile is much greater, a bit faster than 0.99c. So Earth observers will see the missile eventually catch up to B.
 
Doc Al said:
Right. The speed of light (in vacuum) is the same for all observers.

No. Something moving at less than the speed of light will appear to move at a different speed in different frames.

Say A and B are traveling at 0.99c with respect to the earth. A fires a missile at B at 0.05c with respect to the ships. As far as A and B are concerned, that missile is moving at 0.05c.

Of course, as seen by Earth observers, the speed of the missile is much greater, a bit faster than 0.99c. So Earth observers will see the missile eventually catch up to B.

OK. If I Were to fire a photon from ship A to a target on ship B and measure its speed in relation to the missile would I get correct results? If at the same time I fired a photon at a target that was stationary with respect to the Earth and measured its speed would that result agree with spaceship Bs result. If so how? It would mean that the first photon would have to slow dramatically and be time dilated so its speed appeared right to the observer in spaceship B. Otherwise it would simply not be detected at all as time dilation changes spaceship Bs view of the universe.
 
  • #10
hubble_bubble said:
OK. If I Were to fire a photon from ship A to a target on ship B and measure its speed in relation to the missile would I get correct results?
An observer on A would measure the speed of the photon as c, as would an observer on B (obviously), an observer on the missile, and any other observers (e.g. on earth). Similarly with photons fired from B, the missile, the earth, or anything else.

hubble_bubble said:
It would mean that the first photon would have to slow dramatically and be time dilated so its speed appeared right to the observer in spaceship B. Otherwise it would simply not be detected at all as time dilation changes spaceship Bs view of the universe.
Please show your work. You made a mistake somewhere, but it is not clear what that mistake is from this description.
 
  • #11
DaleSpam said:
An observer on A would measure the speed of the photon as c, as would an observer on B (obviously), an observer on the missile, and any other observers (e.g. on earth). Similarly with photons fired from B, the missile, the earth, or anything else.

Please show your work. You made a mistake somewhere, but it is not clear what that mistake is from this description.

Sorry I was being a little flippant. Of course there is no time dilation of the photon. This however still raises the question as to how that individual photon would be perceived. Would it be seen as in a lower energy state? Something has to change due to the time dilation.
 
  • #12
hubble_bubble said:
Sorry I was being a little flippant. Of course there is no time dilation of the photon. This however still raises the question as to how that individual photon would be perceived. Would it be seen as in a lower energy state? Something has to change due to the time dilation.

WHAT time dilation? The people on the ships aren't experiencing any time dilation. Do you understand that or not?

The fact the someone in a DIFFERENT frame of reference sees them time dilated is irrelevant to them.

You do realize, I assume, that you personally are moving at 99.9% of the speed of light from some frame of reference and that frame of reference sees you as time dilated. Do you notice anything?
 
  • #13
phinds said:
WHAT time dilation? The people on the ships aren't experiencing any time dilation. Do you understand that or not?

The fact the someone in a DIFFERENT frame of reference sees them time dilated is irrelevant to them.

You do realize, I assume, that you personally are moving at 99.9% of the speed of light from some frame of reference and that frame of reference sees you as time dilated. Do you notice anything?

Frames of reference are useful tools but the paradoxes abound. I am speaking with reference to the earlier poster who included Earth into the scenario so from the point of view of an Earth observer there would be time dilation.

Spaceship C is traveling in exactly the opposite direction to A and B but not on a collision course. Spaceship C is traveling at the same speed as A and B but in the opposite direction. As C passes spaceship A, A fires one photon at ship B and one photon at ship C. Both ships B and C are at equal distances from A at that time. Will both photons be detected at the same time?
 
  • #14
hubble_bubble said:
Frames of reference are useful tools but the paradoxes abound.
What paradoxes?
I am speaking with reference to the earlier poster who included Earth into the scenario so from the point of view of an Earth observer there would be time dilation.
A second frame had to be introduced to give meaning to your statement that the ships were moving at 0.99c. (Moving at 0.99c with respect to what?) The fact that Earth observers will need to consider time dilation (and other relativistic effects) in interpreting the observations of the ships is irrelevant.

Spaceship C is traveling in exactly the opposite direction to A and B but not on a collision course. Spaceship C is traveling at the same speed as A and B but in the opposite direction. As C passes spaceship A, A fires one photon at ship B and one photon at ship C. Both ships B and C are at equal distances from A at that time.
I assume you meant "as C passes ship B".
Will both photons be detected at the same time?
At the same time according to whom?
 
  • #15
hubble_bubble said:
Would it be seen as in a lower energy state?
That is given by the relativistic Doppler equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

Paradoxes abound only in the sense that there are a lot of things which are confusing to students of relativity. None of the things which confuse students are actual paradoxes representing logical inconsistencies of the theory.
 
  • #16
hubble_bubble said:
OK. If I Were to fire a photon from ship A to a target on ship B and measure its speed in relation to the missile would I get correct results? If at the same time I fired a photon at a target that was stationary with respect to the Earth and measured its speed would that result agree with spaceship Bs result. If so how? It would mean that the first photon would have to slow dramatically and be time dilated so its speed appeared right to the observer in spaceship B. Otherwise it would simply not be detected at all as time dilation changes spaceship Bs view of the universe.
Once again, all observers will measure the speed of that fired photon as being c with respect to their own frame. To understand how those observations can all be consistent, you must apply several relativistic effects, not just time dilation. You must include length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity as well.
 
  • #17
hubble_bubble said:
Spaceship A and spaceship b are traveling at 99.99... % the speed of light. Spaceship A is behind spaceship B. Spaceship A wants to destroy spaceship B and fires a missile. Will spaceship A succeed for any velocity the rocket is launched at and at a variable distance?

The easiest way of getting through this problem is imagine yourself actually on one of the spaceships. From the perspective of someone is spaceship A... You are in a spaceship that is floating motionless in space. Spaceship B is also floating motionless in space somewhere in front of you, right in your gunsights. The rest of the universe is rushing past you at .9999c, but that doesn't change the fact that you and your target are floating motionless. You have an easy shot at your target, and there are no relativity effects involved at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
DaleSpam said:
That is given by the relativistic Doppler equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

Paradoxes abound only in the sense that there are a lot of things which are confusing to students of relativity. None of the things which confuse students are actual paradoxes representing logical inconsistencies of the theory.

That is interesting and explains a few things.
 
  • #19
99.9% of the speed of light with respect to something else doesn't matter at all.

The speed of spaceship A and B is 0 in the example you are talking about.
 
  • #20
As time dilation basically slows down all activity in the two spaceships with reference to an Earth based frame of reference then that also means that propulsion is also slowed down. How does this square with theoretically being able to produce near light propulsion? If all processes slow with relation to the surrounding universe the propulsion would weaken in effect the nearer to light speed one got.

Also as to the expansion of the universe this effect would also be true of any galaxies accelerating away from each other. The special relativistic view of hubble's law would then be nearer the mark than anything else as light speed would be impossible even for a dark energy driven expanding universe.
 
  • #21
Doc Al said:
I assume you meant "as C passes ship B".

No because A follows B. When C has moved past A and is at the same distance from A as B is then the photon is fired. At the time the two photons are fired both C and B will be traveling at the same velocity in opposite directions. As these opposite trajectories are mirror images of each other the interest would be in determining how each photon would be perceived. As A is traveling in the same direction as B we would see the photon at a steady wavelength? Would we see a red shift from the perspective of C?
 
  • #22
hubble_bubble said:
As time dilation basically slows down all activity in the two spaceships with reference to an Earth based frame of reference then that also means that propulsion is also slowed down. How does this square with theoretically being able to produce near light propulsion? If all processes slow with relation to the surrounding universe the propulsion would weaken in effect the nearer to light speed one got.
It's certainly true that clocks (and other processes) on the fast moving ship will be observed to run much more slowly according to Earth observers, but that's not really a problem.

Say you wanted to travel to a planet that was 10 light years from earth. Further, assume you have a ship that can travel at 0.99c. From Earth's point of view, that trip would take a little over 10 years. (10/.99 ≈ 10.1 years.)

From the ship's point of view, the trip would take much less time. For v = 0.99c, γ ≈ 7.1, so according to the ship clocks, the trip would take about 1.4 years.

The effect gets more pronounced the faster the ship can go. For v = 0.999c, the trip would take less than half a year (of ship time).
 
  • #23
hubble_bubble said:
When C has moved past A and is at the same distance from A as B is then the photon is fired.
OK, A fires the photon when C is the same distance from A as is B, as determined by A. (Since C is moving, and simultaneity is frame dependent, C would disagree as to when the photon was fired.)
At the time the two photons are fired both C and B will be traveling at the same velocity in opposite directions. As these opposite trajectories are mirror images of each other the interest would be in determining how each photon would be perceived. As A is traveling in the same direction as B we would see the photon at a steady wavelength? Would we see a red shift from the perspective of C?
Yes: Since the source (A) is not moving with respect to B, B would observe the normal wavelength. But C is moving away from the source, so it would see a red shift. (No need for any elaborate set up if all you care about is the observed frequency.)
 
  • #24
hubble_bubble said:
Spaceship A and spaceship b are traveling at 99.99... % the speed of light. Spaceship A is behind spaceship B. Spaceship A wants to destroy spaceship B and fires a missile. Will spaceship A succeed for any velocity the rocket is launched at and at a variable distance?

I think i understand what you are thinking. Well you have 3 reference points in your post.

But i will guess you are the 4th reference point that is at rest while the spaceships are %99c..

What happens is this;

Spaceship A fires a Rocket towards Spaceship B..
In their frame Spaceship B gets hit within the moment..
In your frame rocket can't go faster than c
With respect to that and the speed of the spaceships it will take a very very long amount of time, before you see that the spaceship B is hit with the rocket.

To my understanding that's what happens.
 
  • #25
ExecNight said:
I think i understand what you are thinking. Well you have 3 reference points in your post.

But i will guess you are the 4th reference point that is at rest while the spaceships are %99c..

What happens is this;

Spaceship A fires a Rocket towards Spaceship B..
In their frame Spaceship B gets hit within the moment..
In your frame rocket can't go faster than c
With respect to that and the speed of the spaceships it will take a very very long amount of time, before you see that the spaceship B is hit with the rocket.

To my understanding that's what happens.

And of course the propellant with respect to my frame of reference will also take an incredibly long time to expel itself. This is paradoxical. In fact the amount of energy and the rate of expulsion needed to maintain velocity/acceleration appears to be inversely proportional to the slowdown due to time dilation. The increase in mass and rate of expulsion should be exponential and directly proportional to the velocity with respect to c. This should approach infinity rapidly as we near light speed.
 
  • #26
This now brings up the question of why the photon is able to travel at light speed. In fact it can ONLY travel at light speed in a vacuum. This is assuming no gravitational effects. The mass of the photon is crucial. Any object of any substantial mass will never behave like a photon as the mass is the critical factor. This is why mass will always hinder light speed travel.
 
  • #27
hubble_bubble said:
And of course the propellant with respect to my frame of reference will also take an incredibly long time to expel itself. This is paradoxical. In fact the amount of energy and the rate of expulsion needed to maintain velocity/acceleration appears to be inversely proportional to the slowdown due to time dilation. The increase in mass and rate of expulsion should be exponential and directly proportional to the velocity with respect to c. This should approach infinity rapidly as we near light speed.
Again, you are making a mistake somewhere. Please post your calculations.
 
  • #28
DaleSpam said:
Again, you are making a mistake somewhere. Please post your calculations.

See the graph here. http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/timedilation.html

"As it can be seen from the above function, the effect of time dilation is negligible for common speeds, such as that of a car or even a jet plane, but it increases dramatically when one gets close to the speed of light. Very close to c, time virtually stands still for the outside observer."

The outside observer see no change close to light speed. This applies to the propulsion mechanism if the mass dos not increase.

"Can we travel at the speed of light?

The hope that one day mankind will be able to travel at near-to-speed-of-light velocities seems farfetched, because of the incredible amounts of energy needed to accelerate a spacecraft to these speeds. The forces are likely to destroy any vehicle before it comes even close to the required speed."
 
  • #29
The effects I am discussing only become a problem at speeds greater than around 90% the speed of light. Up until that point things aren't too out of order, although problems of velocity will be becoming difficult. Time dilation at around 95% c would only make around a 10 year difference with respect to an inertial reference frame. This is why my spaceships were given 99.99...% c velocity.

The nearer to c the nearer to infinity time dilation moves. Basically the system would happily loose all mass to correct this situation.
 
  • #30
hubble_bubble said:
The hope that one day mankind will be able to travel at near-to-speed-of-light velocities seems farfetched, because of the incredible amounts of energy needed to accelerate a spacecraft to these speeds. The forces are likely to destroy any vehicle before it comes even close to the required speed."

Are you aware that a thrust that you experience as 1 g, the same force you feel standing on earth, will quite quickly accelerate you to 99.99999% the speed of light relative to earth? The fuel needed would depend on your elapsed time. At any 'moment', the requirements to accelerate at 1g relative to an instantly comoving inertial frame are the same as when you started from earth.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
712
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K